The Rise Of The “Plutocratic Insurgency”

I’ve written before on the extreme social dangers that come about from excessive concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few. A very important series of articles by Robert and Pamela Bunker in Small Wars Journal has taken this idea one step further: they have identified the current vast income disparities as a form of insurgency warfare. This is a very significant step, and one that is supported by the facts. This condition–in all its forms–they call the plutocratic insurgency. This podcast discusses some of their conclusions, and asks readers to ponder the implications of this insidious form of warfare on the social health of Western nations.

Quintus, this may sound a bit unwelcome, but you should consider running for office. Isn’t your state’s senate seat up for grabs in 2018? You live in Missouri, right (at least that’s what I think I remember you saying once)? If so, McCaskill is very vulnerable. As you’re probably aware, Cernovich is planning to promote candidates for the “revolution of 2018” to kick all these fawning dogs and traitors out of office. We need high quality candidates. I met with one (V.A. Shiva, planning to challenge Fauxcahontas) when Mike was here in NYC last month. It’s worth considering, and you already have a respectable platform.

Hell, who knows what might happen? I’ll be old enough to challenge Gillibrand in New York next year if I think my chances are good.

the rich always ruled, from the beginning of time. In rome the patrician ruled, in the middle ages the feudal lords, in the beginnings of the USA the slaveholders, etc, etc. The exeption of that rule goes from the period from 1945 to 1980. The reason (in Europe) is that anti-facist resistance was communist. The PCI, the PCF. The rich had fear of a revolution. The majority of unions in Europe were all communist. In Britain the labor party win the election of 1945, bringing all the things you want for the USA

You’re missing the point. No one doubts that the rich have always ruled. That’s true. But the issue is a matter of degree. The entire point is that the disparities have become so overwhelmingly one-sided that it is threatening the security of nations and states. That’s the point. The rich ruled throughout time; but when concentrations of wealth become too great, then bad things happen.

If is a matter of degree we are better today than in the past. The zar of russia had more power over his subjets that any plutocrat of today. The idea that the state should be concerned abaut the welfare of his citizen is very new. But yes the world is richer today than 200 years ago, and the rich have more wealth. The only reason they have some murch power is because they are organized, and they have the right to be. If the worker of amazon of amazon or walmart are not organized ts not the fault of bill gates

A very important topic, one that needs to be discussed more often. This is difficult to do because human weaknesses in envy and greed bring out the worst of emotions, and we’ll start name-calling instead of looking at the root of the problem. Work harder, you seem to be doing ok, you could be starving in Africa, etc. are said and the conversation dies, with the plutocrats continuing to win. The regression of both the perception and reality of the American standard of living in 50 years is almost unbelievable.

The biggest issue is how the plutocrats and the beneficiaries are so addicted to the system that changing it will cause a lot of damage, which nobody knows how bad it will be. But it’s better to start now. Basically everything (health care, food, university education,etc) has become too expensive to finance without debt, and our debts grow bigger and bigger by the day. And this doesn’t even touch the costs of starting a family, which is our ultimate purpose as a species. Only so much bread and circuses can mask the despair of being a loser in this rigged game.

The complacent attitude reminds me of this clip. where George Carlin explains why the Muslims will win long-term. Only concerned about the dividend, kind of like you said Quintus when you said everyone agreed and applauded the decision processes under the guise of “saving money.”

With this information one of the fetters upon my perception is broken.

I am in favor, typically, of the “bootstrap” approach. It has been my experience that much of the disparity I witness comes from a mediocrity of conviction and spirit coupled with a willingness to shift blame away from the self and onto others. With that said, I do not perceive Zuckerberg, an example of the eight, as a paragon of either of those virtues.

As a student, I think the pursuit of education (or the lack thereof) is a critical component to plutocratic power. I’m not particularly enamoured with the principal of tenure, since at this point I think it is more of a tool to have professors conform to Cultural-Marxist norms, but I understand its utility in the grand scheme of preserving liberty. The question of how nationalistic or traditionally minded professors can be aided in achieving tenure against the regressive liberal gradient of academia is one that is on my mind. Barring the achievement of this, a powerful shadenfreude has me feeling that the current threat to these professors’ tenure is one that is more useful than damaging to the pursuit of free speech.

In its current state, a student can expect to saddle themselves with debt that would have been incomprehensible only a few generations ago for a subpar education. In fact, I think much of academia is currently dedicated to mere indoctrination. The debt incurred and the indoctrination inculcated serves as a reliable way to have blind indentured servants.

The alternative to this state that is most often discussed by the vanguard of conservatives is simply opting out and getting a library card. I think there is immense merit to this, but the benefit of a rigorous academic program is still lost. This state of affairs seems to only serve as a bandaid as academic sophistication hemorages underneath.

Finally, If politicians were to do something about the uneven distribution of wealth, I fear lack of moderation could be used as a tool to increase the cleavages between the dwindling upper-middle class and those living in poverty. How do you redistribute wealth in moderation without subcuming to complete communism?

Central banks enabled all of this. The problem with society is that they don’t know nor do they want to learn the way our financial system works. We do not have capitalism when wealth can be extracted from all of us without consent via monetary inflation. Capitalism is wrongly blamed for the ills of the world and, of course, Marxism is proposed as the solution. Time for society to wake up and do some reading.